California retail H2 fuel stations

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GRA said:
California Energy Commission/California Air Resources Board:
Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2016 Assessment of Time andCost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-600-2017-002/CEC-600-2017-002.pdf

113 pages.
If you are a fan of H2 FCVs, then you must find the conclusions to be a bit disturbing:
CEC and CARB said:
Based on equipment, design, engineering, project management, and overhead costs for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024.

The Energy Commission’s ARFVTP has already provided more than $100 million in total funding for hydrogen station development support with $80.9 million being invested specifically for 49 stations new or refurbished (or, upgraded) publically available hydrogen refueling stations. Note: Three station upgrades will be pursued, instead of the original four stations that were planned so the total number of stations has decreased from 49 to 48.
The point is that it costs MORE ($125M) to build the second 51 stations than the first 49 ($100M). Apparently only 45 of the first ones were new builds. Still, the conclusions are the same: the costs are growing. Why is this? Likely the answer is that the additional costs are for the O&M of the existing stations. In other words, the more of these stations which are built, the more the ongoing expense for the taxpayers of CA.

Also, I think it is important to make a record of the chart on page 20 regarding H2 FCV registrations:

CARB_FCV_Projections.png


Note that the numbers for 2016, 2017 and 2018 are lowered from previous reports. However, they increased numbers for 2020 and 2021. We can watch this space to see if these projections come true.

But the real question I have about that chart is this: Can the AVERAGE H2 refueling station really support a fleet of over 1500 H2 FCVs? I seriously doubt that. If we assume each FCV refuels about every five days, that is 300 refuelings per station per day (more than one refueling at every station every five minutes). (And that simple analysis assumes that all stations have the same demand and all are working.) Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
California Energy Commission/California Air Resources Board:
Joint Agency Staff Report on Assembly Bill 8: 2016 Assessment of Time andCost Needed to Attain 100 Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-600-2017-002/CEC-600-2017-002.pdf

113 pages.
If you are a fan of H2 FCVs, then you must find the conclusions to be a bit disturbing:
CEC and CARB said:
Based on equipment, design, engineering, project management, and overhead costs for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024.

The Energy Commission’s ARFVTP has already provided more than $100 million in total funding for hydrogen station development support with $80.9 million being invested specifically for 49 stations new or refurbished (or, upgraded) publically available hydrogen refueling stations. Note: Three station upgrades will be pursued, instead of the original four stations that were planned so the total number of stations has decreased from 49 to 48.
The point is that it costs MORE ($125M) to build the second 51 stations than the first 49 ($100M). Apparently only 45 of the first ones were new builds. Still, the conclusions are the same: the costs are growing. Why is this? Likely the answer is that the additional costs are for the O&M of the existing stations. In other words, the more of these stations which are built, the more the ongoing expense for the taxpayers of CA.
For one thing, the second round of stations now being funded will have much greater capacity than the first round. They've added more money for stations that have at least 300 kg./day capacity, vs. the 180 kg. typical of the first gen. Haven't had time to read the full report yet (just the Exec. summary), so will wait to comment further until I've done so.
 
RegGuheert said:
Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

yes, CARB is becoming more and more delusional.
EVs have won, just like Bob Lutz predicted they would.
 
ydnas7 said:
RegGuheert said:
Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.

yes, CARB is becoming more and more delusional.
EVs have won, just like Bob Lutz predicted they would.

This quote from CARB is just disgusting, "for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024."

So, more than DOUBLE the original estimates for funding, plus a whole lot less cars than they originally forecast (without the made up numbers in 2020 and beyond... I can find those rosy prediction from DECADES ago).
 
GRA said:
For one thing, the second round of stations now being funded will have much greater capacity than the first round. They've added more money for stations that have at least 300 kg./day capacity, vs. the 180 kg. typical of the first gen. Haven't had time to read the full report yet (just the Exec. summary), so will wait to comment further until I've done so.
O.K. So then reread the last part of my post that you omitted:
RegGuheert said:
But the real question I have about that chart is this: Can the AVERAGE H2 refueling station really support a fleet of over 1500 H2 FCVs? I seriously doubt that. If we assume each FCV refuels about every five days, that is 300 refuelings per station per day (more than one refueling at every station every five minutes). (And that simple analysis assumes that all stations have the same demand and all are working.) Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.
That means that the average H2 refueling station needs to provide 1200 kg/day. In other words, BEST CASE this overly-expensive H2 refueling network will only be capable of refueling about one-fifth the number of H2 FCVs that CARB is projecting to be delivered (two years before this network is completed). I find it more than a bit "funny" that this calculation is not written in bold letters as a main conclusion of this government "study," or ANY CARB study.

So, what do you think? People are going to go out and purchase a quarter-million-dollar home hydrogen refueling station since they are tired of waiting for hydrogen or maybe they will simply purchase an EV instead?

This calculation is so obvious that it's not possible that CARB is unaware of this fact. But if you think it's hard to sell the idea of enabling 150,000 heavily subsidized cars by spending a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS of infrastructure to the legislature, imagine how much harder it would be to sell that same amount to enable only 30,000 of those subsidized cars, if that many. Interestingly, the cost-per-vehicle of the H2 refueling infrastructure is very close to the number I calculated WAY back at the start of this thread. And since this H2 infrastructure has approximately the same service life as the vehicles, that fee gets tacked onto EVERY H2 FCV put onto the highway.

But don't worry: CARB will be able to blame those evil automobile manufacturers, since they will not be able to build (or sell) that many H2 FCVs before that time. Their ONLY hope to sell 150,000 H2 FCVs by 2024 is to make nearly all of them plug-in hybrids and fueling most of their miles using grid power. Good luck selling those!
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
For one thing, the second round of stations now being funded will have much greater capacity than the first round. They've added more money for stations that have at least 300 kg./day capacity, vs. the 180 kg. typical of the first gen. Haven't had time to read the full report yet (just the Exec. summary), so will wait to comment further until I've done so.
O.K. So then reread the last part of my post that you omitted:
RegGuheert said:
But the real question I have about that chart is this: Can the AVERAGE H2 refueling station really support a fleet of over 1500 H2 FCVs? I seriously doubt that. If we assume each FCV refuels about every five days, that is 300 refuelings per station per day (more than one refueling at every station every five minutes). (And that simple analysis assumes that all stations have the same demand and all are working.) Simply put, that many H2 FCVs will NOT be delivered by 2022 regardless of what CARB wants to happen. Most car buyers already see the folly in these vehicles and it will become much more clear if/when the issues with infrastructure grow beyond reasonable limits.
That means that the average H2 refueling station needs to provide 1200 kg/day. In other words, BEST CASE this overly-expensive H2 refueling network will only be capable of refueling about one-fifth the number of H2 FCVs that CARB is projecting to be delivered (two years before this network is completed). I find it more than a bit "funny" that this calculation is not written in bold letters as a main conclusion of this government "study," or ANY CARB study. <snip rest>
Reg, I'm not clear as to where you get the idea that each station needs to service 1500 FCEVs. Even by 2022, when there are projected to be 43,600 FCEVs and 90 stations, that only works out to 484.44 cars/station. Did you perhaps misplace a decimal?

Appendix D contains all sorts of actual usage data, including average fills, utilization rates, fills by time of day/week, and by 350/700 bar. One oddity is that unlike gas/diesel, which see the majority of fills during morning and evening commutes, the majority of 700 bar H2 fills have been happening around midday. They didn't suggest a reason, and I can't think of one. Haven't quite finished reading all the appendices yet.
 
TonyWilliams said:
This quote from CARB is just disgusting, "for hydrogen refueling stations, funded to date, this report concludes that about $125 million additional funding is needed to reach the 100-station milestone in 2024."

So, more than DOUBLE the original estimates for funding, plus a whole lot less cars than they originally forecast (without the made up numbers in 2020 and beyond... I can find those rosy prediction from DECADES ago).
Tony, how do you arrive at the bolded claim? The bill provides for up to $20 million a year for up to 10 years, which is $200 million total for 100 stations. They've spent $100 million to date for the first 50 stations, and forecast that it will take another $125 million to finish all 100, By my math, that's $225 million total, or a cost increase of 12.5% over the original projection (AFAIA the extra isn't funded as of yet, and I imagine it won't be until they're a lot closer to completion and they have more current cost data).

BTW, actual costs for four different stations of various types (Gaseous or liquid H2 delivery, central SMR and on-site electrolysis) are included in Appendix F.
 
GRA said:
Reg, I'm not clear as to where you get the idea that each station needs to service 1500 FCEVs. Even by 2022, when there are projected to be 43,600 FCEVs and 90 stations, that only works out to 484.44 cars/station. Did you perhaps misplace a decimal?
You're right! I was thrown by the bar chart labeled "population". Typically a scatter plot with lines would be used to represent a growing quantity. I was reading that chart as deliveries per year.
GRA said:
Appendix D contains all sorts of actual usage data, including average fills, utilization rates, fills by time of day/week, and by 350/700 bar. One oddity is that unlike gas/diesel, which see the majority of fills during morning and evening commutes, the majority of 700 bar H2 fills have been happening around midday. They didn't suggest a reason, and I can't think of one. Haven't quite finished reading all the appendices yet.
My conclusion remain: I don't see 100 station supporting more than 30,000 vehicles, and even that is a real stretch since it assumes equal loading between stations and that each station can deliver their daily output during the peak periods. Each assumption is highly unlikely to be true.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
<snip> Appendix D contains all sorts of actual usage data, including average fills, utilization rates, fills by time of day/week, and by 350/700 bar. One oddity is that unlike gas/diesel, which see the majority of fills during morning and evening commutes, the majority of 700 bar H2 fills have been happening around midday. They didn't suggest a reason, and I can't think of one. Haven't quite finished reading all the appendices yet.
My conclusion remain: I don't see 100 station supporting more than 30,000 vehicles, and even that is a real stretch since it assumes equal loading between stations and that each station can deliver their daily output during the peak periods. Each assumption is highly unlikely to be true.
They're not expecting equal utilization. One of the usage charts (Figure D-5, "Station Counts by Average Quarterly Utilization") shows utilization rates as a % of time, and they vary widely. While the majority of stations are in the 0-5 and 5-10% range at the moment, utilization rates have been climbing (from 1.8% avg. & the end of Q4 2015, to 8.0% as of the end of Q3 '16, with 1 station seeing an average utilization rate of 45%), and one is apparently experiencing occasional periods of 75-80% (presumably the same one that's averaging 45%). The main thing such rates can help show is where the density of stations and/or the capacity/throughput of each station needs to be beefed up in future years.
 
GRA said:
They're not expecting equal utilization.
Well, if they don't get EXACTLY balanced utilization (i.e. exactly the right number of H2 FCVs living near and refueling at each station), then they will not even get close to 30,000 because the overloaded stations will run out of H2 daily. I wouldn't be surprised to see the wheels come off at about 10,000 vehicles or even earlier.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
They're not expecting equal utilization.
Well, if they don't get EXACTLY balanced utilization (i.e. exactly the right number of H2 FCVs living near and refueling at each station), then they will not even get close to 30,000 because the overloaded stations will run out of H2 daily. I wouldn't be surprised to see the wheels come off at about 10,000 vehicles or even earlier.
Which is why they've been using computer modeling which takes account of demographic factors, along with actual usage patterns, to forecast where stations need to be added. See Chapter 2 (pages 9-18), "Coverage and Capacity of the Hydrogen Refueling Station Network", and Chapter 5 (pgs. 29-31), "Amount of Growth and the Timing of Growth of the Refueling Network". They're currently forecasting a shortfall around 2020 given current funding and build rates as well as FCEV sales projections. Perfection is unlikely to be achieved, but they seem to have a good handle what will be required.
 
Via GCC:
California Energy Commission selects 16 hydrogen station projects for up to $33.4M in funding
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/02/20170221-cec.html

The California Energy Commission (CEC) has selected 15 new main hydrogen retail station projects for up to $31.7 million in combined funding, as well as one connector station project for up to $1.5 million in fund. Among the program requirements are that each station dispense a minimum of at least 33% renewable hydrogen (per kilogram).

Eight of the main stations projects identified in the Notice of Proposed Awards (NOPA) are to be completed by First Element Fuel; the remaining seven are to be completed by a partnership of Shell and Toyota Motor. . . .
This is the next two-year round of grants, GFO 15-605 (the current round which is completing the first 50 is 13-607). Stations awarded grants are:

I-5 additional connector
Santa Nella (Air Liquide).

Norcal
[SF]
3 in San Francisco (Shell stations).

[East Bay]
Berkeley (Shell station).
Oakland (1st Element).
Walnut Creek (Shell).

[South Bay]
Sunnyvale (1st Elm.)
Campbell (1st Elm.)

[Sacramento area]
Sacramento (Shell).
Citrus Heights (1st Elm.).

SoCal
[Greater LA]
Huntington Beach (1st Elm.).
Sherman Oaks (1st Elm.).
Irvine (1st Elm.).

[San Diego]
San Diego (1st Elm.).

Grant amounts vary from about $1.71 million up to $2.34 million. with matching amounts (from the company) varying from about 1/3rd to something over 1/2.

Full list showing all stations and amounts here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-15-605_NOPA.pdf
 
Checking the location of the Santa Nella site, it's on the south side of I-5, while the Tesla SC is on the north side. Access is easiest for those heading south, harder for those heading north, and the opposite is true for the SC, but neither is difficult. IMO a better site at least for the H2 station and maybe the SC, would have been 3 miles south nearer the junction of I-5 and S.R. 152, as I expect the majority of the traffic at this site to be heading to/from the South Bay Area via 152, but there's fewer places to eat there. That's more of an issue for an SC.
 
Via GCC:
Air Products’ California fueling stations offering hydrogen below $10 per kg
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/03/20170407-airp.html

. . . Advancements in fueling technology and a greater volume of vehicles now using the stations were important factors in allowing the pricing move to less than $10 per hydrogen kilogram ($9.99/kg).

Currently there are five Air Products California hydrogen fueling stations able to provide hydrogen at this new pricing. The five stations are all supplied with hydrogen from Air Products’ world-class hydrogen production and pipeline-connected facilities in Wilmington and Carson, California. The stations with the new pricing are located in West Los Angeles, Woodland Hills, Fairfax, Santa Monica, and the fifth is soon-to-be operational in Lawndale. . . .
Still quite a ways to go to be competitive with gasoline, but moving in the right direction. OTOH, this is the cheapest type of H2, using central point SMR (but like all transportation H2 in the state, must meet or exceed the 33% RFS) and in some cases pipeline delivery. I'll have to check my nearest H2 station (First Element/True Zero) to see if they've dropped any, as they've been charging $16.78/kg. pretty much since they opened. However, there's still no competition for them in the East Bay (scheduled to change, as stations in Fremont and San Ramon are supposed to complete in Q2, but we'll see) so little incentive to do so yet.

At $9.99/kg, the $15k of fuel that Toyota and Honda are providing for lessees over three years would take a Mirai over 100k miles at its 67 mpkg EPA rating. Edmunds got an average of 58.9 mpkg (high 74.3 in relaxed driving, low 41.9 during track testing) over the 6 months of their long-term test, so using that instead would still get you over 88,400 miles in three years. Of course, Toyota only gives you 12k miles a year on the basic $349/month 36-month lease, so it's kind of moot. Bottom line, though, is that you can be certain that you won't have to pay for fuel at any time in the three years at this price, without radically exceeding your mileage limit in the Mirai or even the Clarity (which comes with 20k miles/year on the base $369/month base lease, and is rated at 68 MPGe).
 
CAFCP has modified their station map. It previously showed all the existing and planned stations, allowing you to select the latter by their planned opening quarters. The new version eliminates that last option (although the individual station links do give scheduled opening quarters), but the map now shows the different status stations by color codes as existing, commissioning, under construction or in planning status, and includes those proposed stations which just received grant funding from the state under GFO 15-607 - none of the latter have moved beyond knowing where the intended sites are.
 
While I'm sure it's still a very rare occurrence here, yesterday afternoon while riding my bike by the local H2 station I was amazed to see not one but two FCEVs there - a Clarity just finishing fueling, and a Mirai in line. As I've only seen any FCEV there on maybe 3 occasions prior to this, it was a bit shocking. I've seen Claritys in the wild on three occasions now, about the same number of times I've seen a Mirai.
 
Back
Top